World Youth Movement for Democracy

   Home   About  Participate  Resources   Events   WYMD Chat        Contact Us   Join Now! 

Jorge Luis Vallejo Castello
Peru

Democracy in Peru: between the ideal and the empirical:
A quick trip though national political history
en espaņol

It's clear, as asserted by Robert Dahl, that democracy oscillates between an ideal concept of "moral judgments" or "value judgments" and concept of reality, or "empirical judgments." What we have in our minds is a kind of back-and-forth between the "should be" and the "is." According to this theory, the basis for democracy rests upon the idea that all individuals of a determined constituency should be considered as "politically equal," based on five clear criteria: effective participation (equality of opportunity to present issues and opinions), voting equality (opportunity to vote and have all votes carry the same weight), enlightened understanding (opportunity to educate oneself through inquiry, discussion, and deliberation around key issues), control of the agenda (propose issues for deliberation and/or modification) and the inclusion of adults (all permanent residents should be treated as political equals) (Dahl 1999: 47-48).

Time to land in Peruvian reality and analyze a few of these criteria. "Effective participation" and "equality of vote" were topics of long debate throughout our history. We have, for example, Bartolomé Herrera, who in the 19 th century did not view the idea of suffrage for the indigenous population favorably, alleging that they would be easily manipulated due to their lack of education. The limited "enlightened understanding" of the indigenous people (because there were major obstacles to their access to it) would be exploited by landholders who would control and manipulate indigenous votes to benefit themselves. Because of this, the principle proposal and program of Herrera was more education as a first step.

Such arguments are not so far from us, since we only gained the so-called "inclusion of adults" in 1980 when the vote was authorized for illiterates. What is interesting is to ask ourselves what else has been done to elevate them to the category of   "citizens," or rather, was it enough to just give them the right to vote? Is this the only mechanism of citizen expression? Clearly not, but it is a way. Dahl indicates that it is not likely that any society will become fully democratic, but at least the five criteria, presented above, will serve as evaluation indicators to assess how well or badly the democratization process is advancing. In this sense, in the case of Peru the expansion of the right to vote fulfils part of these criteria, a "necessary" but not "sufficient" condition in the construction of a democratically-oriented society.

Let's now examine Peruvian political culture. According to the Encuesta Nacional sobre la Democracia en el Perú (2006) (National Survey on Democracy in Peru), undertaken by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 73.5% of Peruvians surveyed believe that "authoritarian governments" are required for good management of the country. Thus it seems that our short time living under democratic governments has made us inclined to believe that the "strong hand" is a sign of order and progress.

Our independent life has largely taken place under de facto governments. The caudillos of the early Republic fought amongst themselves armed with a supposed legitimacy won by the Constitutional Letters ( Cartas Constitucionales ), which they themselves brought forth at their pleasure and never hesitated to invoke in their constant fighting. This is their way to get into power: lead a coup against the State and soon hold "elections," allowing also for the creation of a new Constitution to grant them a false air of legitimacy. To do this, they motivate the people, the "insurrection" is their alternative form of "direct democracy." (Aljovín 2000: 261 - 317).

This is how we see that the call to the masses used in populism is not exclusive to the 20 th century. The appeal to the people, made by the each leader of the moment, has been present for quite some time.

As R. Dahl also mentions, democratization implies "public debate" and "capacity of representation." A call to the masses is an element present in dictatorial governments, but not permission to debate; in this way they prevent the existence of opposition to the regime (Dahl 1989: 15 - 18). In this way, the notion is created of an exalted messianic leader for every moment in history; these are the "savior boots" that represent the original caudillos, who sought a certain legality before the masses for their "popular investment."

People seek order and authority; based on this craving, during the early years of the Republic the idea of "nationality" emerges as a powerful "political weapon." "Peru for Peruvians" is the motto with which State nationalization is developed (which explains in part the subsequent campaign of antipathy against Simón Bolívar), and the Incan past is remembered in an attempt to consolidate a nation with a territory similar to the dead empire (let us remember the attempts to maintain a Peru-Bolivian Confederation) (Aljovín 2000: 217 - 259)

Nationalism begins to be used as a weapon for elimination of contenders for power. Thus   in those early years, the caudillo Agustín Gamarra emerges as the national leader, while his rival Andrés de Santa Cruz is seen as the "Bolivian foreigner" in his fight for control of the State. Johann Jacob von Tschudi, Swiss traveler of the 19 th century, describes the historical moment: "By way of an example: a member of Huancayo's congress (1939) [congress convened by Gamarra] was in the habit of carrying with him a dagger that he put on the table of the National Assembly, and upon the blade one could read a motto, "Death to the foreigners" ( Muerte a los extrajeros ). (Tschudi 1966: 55).

The objective is to "eliminate" the opponent in a "zero sum" game, only one individual will lead and win all; nationality is used in part as a tool to achieve this end.

Continuing with our political culture, Tschudi also looks at and blames the fickle character of the people, as he relates the entrance of a caudillo to Lima: "They embraced Santa Cruz's horse and kissed it from its hoofs to its ears, they lifted the generals from their seats and almost killed them with so much affection. And these were the same people who, a few weeks back, celebrated with the same enthusiasm Orbegoso, who was put up against Santa Cruz, just as they constructed arches of triumph when Gamarra entered Lima leading an enemy army!" (Idem: 56)

Here is a first approximation of caudillist paternalism, leadership that appeals to the masses, personality in politics, and nationalism as a weapon and banner - factors that we also find in populism of the 20 th century.

Without doubt, it is appropriate to speak of our "political clientelism"; for Nicos Mouzelis the definition is relatively general: "the didactic relation between a patron and a client - typically a personal relationship based on the exchange of goods and services between the two parts of unequal wealth, power, and status." (Vilas 1995: 477).

The path to participation in the Peruvian public debate will appear as "clientelist". The popular masses are not irrational; on the contrary, they know what they want and how to get it, thus they offer their support to this or that party hoping to later be rewarded: "... visions based on ideas of irrationality and disorganization were questioned by studies that showed that populist followers were mobilized by way of clientelist political structures, that their behavior was more rational and instrumental on voting for politicians that based their leaderships on the capacity to distribute material and symbolic goods" (De la Torre 2004: 54).

This is a calculation for the optimization of benefits, not irrationality. It should not be seen in a fully negative sense, considering that it is a rational mechanism that in some way mitigates the continual neglect of the high levels of the State. Because of this did the beginning of this essay present the question, "is it enough to simply give them the right to vote?" We continue to see that the answer is "no." It is necessary to include new voters as full citizens with the possession of basic rights and the obligation to meet their responsibilities. In this way we can confront the common phenomenon of internalized clientelism.

Returning to the ideas of Dahl, it can be said that Peru is moving from a "competitive oligarchy" towards "polyarchy" (Dahl 1989: 17 - 18). Oligarchies would direct national policy from the salons and clubs maintaining clientelist networks. Not for nothing, as an interesting note, does a dictionary edited in 1935 provide the following meaning for "club": "unofficial political meeting" ( conciliábulo politico ).

Faithful to "civic republicanism," the "virtuous" governed, constituting an elite. Unfortunately, their dedication was not always disinterested; while seeking the "public good," many private interests were present. The private sphere, (zenith of "liberalism") mixes with the public sphere (space for the full realization of "civic republicanism"). Furthermore, "democracy" is created putting forward "in writing" that everyone is able and equal before the law, but who is "everyone"? Who is a full citizen?

This is our "polyarchy" - a conjunction of the three traditions, "civic republicanism", "liberalism", and "democracy", plus the ruling State (O'Donnell 1997: 16).

It is important that we ask, what happened in the field? Attempts to incorporate the indigenous reality were isolated and only semantic; after the War of the Pacific, and due to indigenous participation in the conflict, already at the beginning of the 29 th century: "the Lima elite - from conservative to iconoclast - erased the indigenous from the national script as proven or potential political subjects. As the official history of the Peruvian defeat crystallized around the idea of the ignorant and apathetic native, the 'indigenous race' came to be seen as unsuitable for citizenship" (Larson 2002: 142 - 144). The indigenous people remained under control of the haciendas and their elites (particularly in the mountains). The military coup of Juan Velasco in 1968 ended the oligarchy and sought inclusion that could not be put into practice. He made the call to the masses, but this cannot be spoken of as the generation of citizens considering that, as a dictatorship, there was nothing even as elemental as elections, which are a sign of the exercise of citizenship.

Entering the 20 th century, many indigenous people moved from the countryside to the city (massive urbanization) rebuilt the old bases of patronage as new clientelist hosts. Says N. Mouzelis about the migration factor: "It was completely natural for these people, accustomed to the direction of the patron - traditional protector, to trust and support the populist leader" (Vilas 1995:475).

Thus we see them in new political clienteles, hoping for some sort of inclusion and recognition of their rights. The "State reform" so in vogue should face this reality, a task which is not simple, but is necessary to begin the establishment of measures that have as their final objective the generation of more citizens, "Peruvians," in all senses of the word, that feel that finally their State represents and truly serves them. Therefore, it is not a matter of "irrationality" to minimize the State or make it grow without bounds; it is a matter of having an "efficient" State that is inclusive and concerned with general wellbeing. This is democratization.

We cannot put ourselves on one side of the confrontation between "more State" or "less State"; the motto from which we should work for a true reform must be: "better State," as a promoter of citizenship, responsibilities and guaranteed rights for its inhabitants. This is my vision of a path toward a society that is not necessarily "ideal," but a society that is more "viable" and balanced.

It is necessary and very worthwhile to open spaces for dialogue, for debate on points of view; this is progress towards the strengthening of democracy.

I will cite a simple example from my own experience. For some time, a space called "Monsefú Circles" has been functioning in one of Peru's northern districts, and an open forum for all citizens of the area. We have been developing this initiative with a group of young people interested in combining forces for the progress of the community.

"Monsefú Circles" consists of two sections: culture and current concerns, under the motto "past and present looking to the future."

The cultural section organizes exhibitions and investigations into the historical bitterness of our region, encouraging and promoting the work of young researchers. In the current concerns section, difficult issues that trouble the population are confronted. The dynamic is simple: inhabitants and local press are invited, the problem is presented, and together (the population and professionals specialized in the topic in question) seek viable solutions. As a result of these dialogues, proposals are brought to the municipal authority for consideration.

This is a form of contributing to local governance, while at the same time generating participation of the population, such that they feel that they are part of politics and that they are, as is their right, heard. So do their proposals enter the public agenda. In this way, I understand "active citizenship" as contributing to democratic institutions.

Finally, I reiterate my general concept regarding democracy. As I have expressed above, democracy is the regime in which the people exercise their guaranteed civil, political, and social rights, and at the same time have responsibilities to fulfill them. All this in the context of equality before the law, equality which is not found idyllically on "ink and paper", but that is put into praxis . Written idealization and the empirical reality of its exercise should, as such, complement each other.

A viable democratic society will be possible when we are among "citizens". Generating greater citizenship continues as an incomplete task in both Peru and Latin America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

•  Aljovín, Cristóbal. Caudillos y constituciones. Perú: 1821 - 1845 . Lima: Fondo Editorial de Cultura Económica. 2000.

•  Dahl, Robert. La democracia. Una guía para los ciudadanos . Taurus. Madrid - Buenos Aires. 1999.

•  Dahl, Robert. La poliarquía. Participación y oposición . Tecnos - Rei. Buenos Aires. 1989.

•  De la Torre, Carlos. Un balance crítico a los debates sobre el nuevo populismo . En: Reeler los populismos, varios autores. Quito. CAAP. 2004.

•  Larson, Brooke. Indígenas, Elites y Estado en la formación de las Repúblicas Andinas . Lima: Fondo Editorial PUCP. 2002.

•  O'Donnell, Guillermo. "Accountability horizontal" . En: Ágora. Nº 8. Verano 1998. Buenos Aires. 1997.

•  Tschudi, Johann Jacob von. Testimonio del Perú, 1838 - 1842 . Lima: Talls. Gráfs. P.L. Villanueva. 1966.

•  Vilas, Carlos (edit). La democratización fundamental del populismo en América Latina . Buenos Aires. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. 1995.